(13-09-2017 08:23 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote: I'd take most of what is written on the "DailyKos" with as much skepticism as rightwing news sources. They have an agenda just as much as infowars does. I did some searching for the actual transcript of the hearing but haven't found it yet. I've seen some other sources "Politico" with quotes but I am looking for the actual transcript. Why am I looking for the transcript? Politico has the following quote but I want to find the actual transcript.

Quote:Barrett insisted that she'd abide by all precedent and that her writings on the subject actually explain that Catholic judges who find a conflict between their religious views and a specific case need to step aside from that case.

"It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law," Barrett said during the hearing.

If those are true quotes then the DailyKos left out some important information. I am not competent or knowledgeable enough to evaluate whether Amy Barrett should be confirmed and maybe she shouldn't. I simply want to point out that the DailyKos is not a good source for balanced journalism any more than AiG should be used in a discussion of Evolution.

You nailed it.

This story was false.

DKOS is just a bunch of individual bloggers, anyone can post anything, their users recommend it then it gets shared. Someone else on the site attempted to refute it, and it briefly made the rec list, but was soon buried due to newer articles.
Here it is: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/9/...-fake-news
Still no retraction from the original author, unfortunately it just shows that anyone can be susceptible to confirmation bias. It did seem like a true story though, Poe's?

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

(14-09-2017 01:15 PM)MustangManda Wrote: It did seem like a true story though, Poe's?

I'm glad this didn't happen as described in the OP, but this is a common sentiment from the right. Pence is on record repeatedly saying he's a Christian first, an American second, and a conservative third.

(13-09-2017 02:55 PM)Dr H Wrote: "Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

'I, ______________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _______ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.'"

You're bolded text is what causes me a serious degree of annoyance, and apprehension. Can it be true that US judges are expected to ask, by rote, for the "help" of a supernatural entity in formulating their judicial decisions? Why has this "so help me God" phrase not been elided form the US judicial vow, particularly in an allegedly enlightened 21st century?

Anyway... During Amy Coney Barrett's hearing, she was questioned about her Catholic faith by US Senator Dianne Feinstein;

Feinstein's line of questioning was criticized by University of Notre Dame president John I. Jenkins and Princeton University president Christopher Eisgruber. In a letter to Feinstein, Jenkins wrote "It is chilling to hear from a United States Senator that this [the Catholic faith] might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge. I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom 'dogma lives loudly'—which is a condition we call faith". [the disqualification claim is ludicrous]

Citing the 'No Religious Test Clause' of the US Constitution, Eisgruber asked US Senators to "refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views... because religious belief is constitutionally irrelevant to the qualifications for a federal judgeship."

During her hearing, Barrett said "It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."

We had a not dissimilar precedent set here in Australia when one of our recent prime ministers (=POTUS) who's a practising Catholic stated that he was diametrically opposed to same-sex marriage, the RU-486 abortion pill, and stem cell research. Reinforced by the fact that more than 50% of our parliamentarians are Catholic causes me not a little concern. Religion is an insidious evil. Period.

Intersting point though Syz. US constitution does guarantee no religious test for office. Which is as it should be. Judge should execute her duty in terms of the law, if she fucks up and *does* allow her faith to influence her judicial decisions then she's not doing her job correctly and there are (or should be) procedures in place to deal with that.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

(16-09-2017 01:48 AM)morondog Wrote: Intersting point though Syz. US constitution does guarantee no religious test for office. Which is as it should be. Judge should execute her duty in terms of the law, if she fucks up and *does* allow her faith to influence her judicial decisions then she's not doing her job correctly and there are (or should be) procedures in place to deal with that.

Which would be great, if we could rely on those systems to actually work. However, in practice, they often do not.